6d2 is here.

Just thinking out loud here, but they have given the 6dmk2 much better AF apparently, much like they did the 5d4. Could it be that canon is gearing the 6d toward users at higher ISO ratings and a little more action oriented content?

Then you have the 5d4 which gets you that in addition to higher resolution and significantly better low range DR.

So what would the high DR at base ISO be? Could that be leaving room for the 5ds2? If they were to come out with signifantly improved base DR it would serve to create some pretty clear distinctions. The ultimate high resolution high DR machine for static and landscape work. FPS would likely suffer due to file sizes but that would be "okay" for most of that market segment. If the DR competes well with Sony and Nikon offerings it could be a pretty good line up.

The biggest bang (for Canon) is they wouldn't have so much overlap of capabilities, and pretty well defined market segments.

Just a thought, and probably because I have high hopes for the 5ds2.

That's it! I've had all I can take! I'm buying this...

shaunmcfd wrote in post #18416666
That's it! I've had all I can take! I'm buying this...

Hosted photo: posted by shaunmcfd in
./showthread.php?p=184​16666&i=i240337461
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Better check the DR on that. I'll wait for the MF version. Thanks.

Bassat wrote in post #18416652
Your graphic does not make your point. Everyone knows the 6DII is down-scale camera. According to the graphic, the 6D2 is as good as the 5D3, which nobody complained about. At ISO 800, the 6DII is as good as the 6D. Above 800, you've provided no information. Even at lower ISO's the DR difference is less than 0.2 stops. How many frames is that going to matter in?

If this is the sum total of the argument, what we have here is another "Bash the new camera." thread. The 60D got the same treatment. It was wildly popular. The 7D got the same treatment. It was wildly popular. The 7D2 got the same treatment. It was wildly popular. If history is to repeat itself, the 6D2 will be wildly popular.

Move along folks. Nothing to see here.

EDIT:
The 6D got the same treatment. It too, is/was a wildly popular camera. I had a 60D, 7D, and now own a 6D. All three did what I expected of them, despite being bashed in fora/threads like this.

I think you made the point very clear. A camera that came out as in upgrade in 2017 is JUST ABOUT equal to the camera that came out 5 years ago that its supposed to be replacing.

Do you think nobody would have complained about the 5diii when it came out if it was worse than the 5dii? Or yet worse than even canons own crop camera's from a year and a half before it. Its not a matter of it it will sell its the fact that its really not an upgrade. It's 4 year old camera the day it was released.

Bassat wrote in post #18416669
Better check the DR on that. I'll wait for the MF version. Thanks.

At 9 bucks vs 2000, I'd say it quite puts the 6D2 to shame for performance/price.

shaunmcfd wrote in post #18416666
That's it! I've had all I can take! I'm buying this...

Hosted photo: posted by shaunmcfd in
./showthread.php?p=184​16666&i=i240337461
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Um.. This has way better DR especially at ISO 25.

I wish everybody would calm down and stop the personal attacks. And mocking those of us who are concerned about yesteryear's sensor technology in the 6DII isn't making things any better either. Please, everybody, have some respect for people with a different opinion than your own?

Scoobert wrote in post #18416673
I think you made the point very clear. A camera that came out as in upgrade in 2017 is JUST ABOUT equal to the camera that came out 5 years ago that its supposed to be replacing.

Do you think nobody would have complained about the 5diii when it came out if it was worse than the 5dii? Or yet worse than even canons own crop camera's from a year and a half before it. Its not a matter of it it will sell its the fact that its really not an upgrade. It's 4 year old camera the day it was released.

The 5DIII was supposed to be a top of the line camera. The 6DII is an upgrade to the entry-level 6D.

The 6DII has a boatload of upgrades compared to the 6D.

The one point you guys are picking on is a minute (0.2 stops) at 1 ISO setting. That hardly makes it a POS.

Much worse was said about the: 60D, 6D, 7D, 7DII. I really don't think anyone who would seriously consider a 6DII would be bothered by 0.2 stops at 1 ISO setting. Much ado about nothing.

DaviSto wrote in post #18416677
..

But I would like to learn more about the camera and its capabilities ... from people who know how to take good photographs ... and who aren't entirely obsessed with little stuff.

That pretty much got sorted out in the first few pages. Features are easy to describe and quantify as they are hard facts. Image quality is so subjective that it leads to endless debate.

DaviSto wrote in post #18416677
I think it comes down to the fact that (some) people are coming to this thread with a strong (and fairly obvious) agenda.

It annoys me ... extremely ... as much because it is unbearably tedious as because it is materially unreasonable.

Ok ... maybe it is all just a bit of a 'game' for the (I am trying not to use a word like 'trolls') people who enjoy engaging in this sort of behaviour. Good luck ... I suppose ... I hope they enjoy it.

But I would like to learn more about the camera and its capabilities ... from people who know how to take good photographs ... and who aren't entirely obsessed with little stuff.

Many would look at your post as an overall agenda as nothing short of either a canon fanboi or employee. Your only interest in this thread is to argue with people down to the last detail in spite of the facts. That sir is the definition of a troll.

Bassat wrote in post #18416683
The one point you guys are picking on is a minute (0.2 stops) at 1 ISO setting. That hardly makes it a POS.

We're not talking about 0.2 stops at 1 ISO setting. We're talking about old sensor tech vs new. We're talking about this:

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

DaviSto wrote in post #18416677
I think it comes down to the fact that (some) people are coming to this thread with a strong (and fairly obvious) agenda.

It annoys me ... extremely ... as much because it is unbearably tedious as because it is materially unreasonable.

Ok ... maybe it is all just a bit of a 'game' for the (I am trying not to use a word like 'trolls') people who enjoy engaging in this sort of behaviour. Good luck ... I suppose ... I hope they enjoy it.

But I would like to learn more about the camera and its capabilities ... from people who know how to take good photographs ... and who aren't entirely obsessed with little stuff.

I'm with you. Some strange people wandering around the internet nowadays... Guess it makes them feel better to bash something that they have/had no intention on ever purchasing. I don't really understand why people are mad about something no one is forcing them to buy. If I see something I don't like, I simply don't purchase it. Instead, I purchase something that fits my needs. Problem solved.

Dlee13 wrote in post #18416631
A few things people seem to struggle to understand

- Not everyone cares about base ISO DR. I definitely care more about high ISO than base, so people constantly may like to think everyone only cares about base performance but that's not the case. I respect people that people care about base performance, now people need to start respecting that myself and many others don't care about it.

- As Jared Polin states, there's barely any difference from ISO 320 onwards. Is the 6D2 behind other cameras at base? Yes it is. Do the majority of people who buy this camera care? No. The 6D wasn't made for base ISO performance, it was made for high ISO. Also as someone who actually owns and uses the 6D2, I can say it is also definitely made for high ISO.

- Myself and many others care more about real world performance and prefer to look at actual examples of images, not graphs.

No matter how much each side of this argument post, people can't seem to let it be. Last post on the DR topic for me. It's done to death, camera is out and people who have bought it are enjoying it so enough said.

Now we don't struggle to understand this. Those of us that care are discussing it. If it matters little to you, then there is no need to get into each reply about DR to contradict its value, or show subjective results that obviously mean there is no issue with DR, or point to technically fallacious reviews from others about the lack of DR issues. I think the majority that care about DR understand more that it could matter little to others, than the other way around.

Those that have no need for < ISO 800 DR continue to belittle those that need it or want it, and talk about "being lazy on exposure", or "expose properly up front", or a number of other derogatory, and quite frankly, ignorant answers. I have yet to see somebody that cares about DR in the lower ISO spectrum tell somebody that wants high ISO that "there is no need for high ISO, you just have to use enough lights for the scene so you can shoot in the lower higher DR ISO range." That would be rude and ignorant all to itself, yes?

We understand several here don't care about DR. That means the 6D2 is perfect for them, but it doesn't mean it doesn't matter to others. There are many others that:

- Need better low ISO DR for what they shoot
- Refuse to send Canon new money for a technology that has stepped backward from other same-generation offerings, including a $500 Rebel
- Want to future-proof their purchase so that they don't have to buy yet another new camera in 2-3 years
- Had hoped for a better 6D2 release than what it was, and now are confused on how to progress

Or a combination of these things... These are the folks that care about the 6D2 and what it doesn't bring to the table. For those that don't care, why get into the middle of such discussions?

Scoobert wrote in post #18416687
Many would look at your post as an overall agenda as nothing short of either a canon fanboi defender. Your only interest in this thread is to argue with people down to the last detail in spite of the facts. That sir is the definition of a troll.

Never argued for Canon ... impressed with the innovation of Sony ... Nikon has heritage that no other modern camera can claim ... sitting always on uncomfortable fences.

There is no way that I hold any particular candle for Canon ... except for its weight on my wallet, perhaps, and that's just a little slice of reality that I somehow have to deal with (all those lenses just grew and multiplied over the years).

I am absolutely not some Canon brand-bunny and very interested in what Sony (especially) and Nikon (honestly, only slightly) are bringing to the party.

But I abhor deliberate mis-truth.

PJJ205 wrote in post #18416694
I'm with you. Some strange people wandering around the internet nowadays... Guess it makes them feel better to bash something that they have/had no intention on ever purchasing. I don't really understand why people are mad about something no one is forcing them to buy. If I see something I don't like, I simply don't purchase it. Instead, I purchase something that fits my needs. Problem solved.

You seem to ignore the fact that many of us were waiting to upgrade to a new camera and - rightfully in my opinion - are now quite disappointed by Canon.
Not all of us can spend the money for a 5D4, which is what Canon would like us to do.

Problem NOT solved.